• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Worst Misuse of Tape vs. Film?

The rather confusing and cryptic "colors" post got me thinking of a related subject. What are some of the worst examples historically of shows that were shot on tape and really should have been filmed, or vice-versa?

One of the obvious examples concerns the half-dozen Twilight Zone episodes that were shot on tape in a cost-cutting move. A few of these are among the "classics" we revere, such as "Night of the Meek" with Art Carney as the drunken Santa Claus, "Long Distance Call" with Billy Mumy getting calls from his dead granny on his toy phone, and "Twenty-Two" (is not "Room for one more, honey" one of the most remembered lines of any TZ episodes?) And yet, whenever I watch these, I am discomforted by the garish lighting, harsh contrast, and tinny audio typical of early 60's tape production. It doesn't totally ruin these classics for me, but does diminish the experience a bit -- tape is just so wrong for the series. I almost have to mentally divorce these episodes from association with TZ altogether to appreciate them -- sort of trick my mind into seeing those 6 shows as a world apart from the rest of the series.

A lesser-known example: In 1977, the original cast of "The Addams Family" was reunited for a Halloween special. However, instead of using the original sets (or trying to recreate them) and shooting on film, the special was shot in an actual house, in color, on videotape! I was always a big fan of the show, and remember looking forward to the special, only to watch in disbelief, muttering to myself "This...is...just...SO...wrong..." To me, the Addams and their pseudo-gothic atmosphere belong on film, preferably black-and-white. (Yes, I know the classic gothic soap Dark Shadows was shot on tape, but at least they used lighting and such effectively to give it a darker quality, whereas the Addams special looked as garish and cheap as any lo-budget tape production would.) And I understand that shooting in B&W would have been anathema in the 70's, but even if the decision to use tape was necessary from an economic viewpoint, they could have muted the colors and used a bit more creative lighting to try to come closer to the original feel and look of the show.

Finally, I have to mention the first season of Newhart. Why does it look so "wrong" to me for it to be on tape? Is there honestly an aesthetic consideration there, or does the mere fact that I know it was an MTM production make me expect that it will be filmed, and thus the jarring dissonance I feel watching that first season? ;)
 
IIRC, the videotaped Twilight Zone episodes were the result of orders from CBS, which were later rescinded. It was a combination of pleas from Rod Serling, negative viewer mail, and CBS suits themselves watching the program that spurred the change.

Another MTM show that was videotaped was WKRP in Cincinnati. I'm just trying to imagine how that show would have looked if it had been filmed.

I can think of one show that did both: Open House, a late 80s Fox sitcom which was originally called Duet. Open House began it's first and subsequent only season on film, then there was a major cast change and a change of plot focus (READ: shark-jumping), and suddenly, OH was on videotape.
 
The rather confusing and cryptic "colors"
...okay,okay...different TONES AND CONTRAST. I thought you woulda caught my drift after the numerous examples.
If the reason is some are film & some are tape then there's my answer.
I think there was a Munsters special in the 70's that was taped differently than the regular t.v show that was noticeably different.
 
nightfly61 said:
The rather confusing and cryptic "colors"
...okay,okay...different TONES AND CONTRAST. I thought you woulda caught my drift after the numerous examples.
If the reason is some are film & some are tape then there's my answer.

I'm sorry if that came off sounding arrogant or belittling -- it's just that (and we discussed this once before on this board) I have always been able to spot the obvious differences between live/tape and film and peg each on sight -- to me it's just a given. Anything live or tape looks "real" -- as if you were looking through a window at a real-life scene -- it has the brightness and crispness of reality -- while film is obviously the cinematic look we see in theaters, more subdued and like the "moving photographs" that it actually is. And some folks literally can't even tell the difference by sight -- not even the inability to define the difference, but don't see any difference at all, which is unfathomable to me. I think we once sort of defined that inability as the visual equivalent of being "tone-deaf." Not that there's anything wrong with that..... ;D (But then, I also have perfect pitch, so maybe the two do go hand-in-hand....) ;)
 
Another MTM show that was videotaped was WKRP in Cincinnati. I'm just trying to imagine how that show would have looked if it had been filmed.
It would have looked better, more realistic looking.
Les's famous turkey drop episode would have looked more "outside" also. I can't remember if the episode where they played WPIG in softball/?/baseball was shot outside or on stage?
 
Stanislav said:
nightfly61 said:
The rather confusing and cryptic "colors"
...okay,okay...different TONES AND CONTRAST. I thought you woulda caught my drift after the numerous examples.
If the reason is some are film & some are tape then there's my answer.

I'm sorry if that came off sounding arrogant or belittling -- it's just that (and we discussed this once before on this board) I have always been able to spot the obvious differences between live/tape and film and peg each on sight -- to me it's just a given. Anything live or tape looks "real" -- as if you were looking through a window at a real-life scene -- it has the brightness and crispness of reality -- while film is obviously the cinematic look we see in theaters, more subdued and like the "moving photographs" that it actually is. And some folks literally can't even tell the difference by sight -- not even the inability to define the difference, but don't see any difference at all, which is unfathomable to me. I think we once sort of defined that inability as the visual equivalent of being "tone-deaf." Not that there's anything wrong with that..... ;D (But then, I also have perfect pitch, so maybe the two do go hand-in-hand....) ;)

I don't feel "belittled" ...your responses are fine, Stanislav. But I still don't understand why - in this age when TV dramas are supposedly shot on HD video - why some scenes would look like film, while the occasional action scene would look like it's filmed on old soap-opera era videotape.
 
Stanislav said:
nightfly61 said:
The rather confusing and cryptic "colors"
...okay,okay...different TONES AND CONTRAST. I thought you woulda caught my drift after the numerous examples.
If the reason is some are film & some are tape then there's my answer.

I'm sorry if that came off sounding arrogant or belittling -- it's just that (and we discussed this once before on this board) I have always been able to spot the obvious differences between live/tape and film and peg each on sight -- to me it's just a given. Anything live or tape looks "real" -- as if you were looking through a window at a real-life scene -- it has the brightness and crispness of reality -- while film is obviously the cinematic look we see in theaters, more subdued and like the "moving photographs" that it actually is. And some folks literally can't even tell the difference by sight -- not even the inability to define the difference, but don't see any difference at all, which is unfathomable to me. I think we once sort of defined that inability as the visual equivalent of being "tone-deaf." Not that there's anything wrong with that..... ;D (But then, I also have perfect pitch, so maybe the two do go hand-in-hand....) ;)

I don't feel "belittled" ...your responses are fine, Stanislav. I understand the difference between the first season of Newhart (shot on video), and subsequent seasons shot on film), but my low-tech brain still doesn't understand why - in this age when TV dramas are supposedly shot on HD video - why some scenes would look like film, while the occasional action scene would look like it's filmed on old soap-opera era videotape.
 
Something else that gets me are shows who's opens & closes are different(tape to film or vise versa) than the actual show.
Alice
One Day At A Time
Welcome Back Kotter
Chico & the Man...hmmm...what are some other drastic examples?
I would say All In The Family, the Jeffersons, WKRP, & Maude but they kinda have that "inside" look going on "outside".
...and on another note...when the camera zooms in on the front door of Archie Bunker's house...isn't it screened in, where any porch episodes (like when the Nazis painted the Swastika on the door) it was a completely different looking porch. :D...I think Maude was the same way.
 
British comedies from the 1970s, 1980s, and even a few from the 1990s tended to use videotape for indoor scenes and film for outdoor ones. Examples of this include "To the Manor Born," "As Time Goes By," "Good Neighbors" and "Fresh Fields."

The transition from one to the other between scenes is jarring to say the least!! :eek:
 
"Jarring" is putting it lightly...more like freaky.

I remember "Doctor In The House" before I even ever heard of Monty Python (which did it continuously) and "The Marty Feldman Comedy Machine" using lots of segs from tape to film to tape....mind you those studio color cameras (Norelco and especially RCA) were incredibly bulky, heavy...and yes a lot less mobile.

But any-hoo when I think of tape versus films I think of all the great 60s shows that were videotaped but later got transferred over to as a kinescope on film.
NBC probably wanted to save a little money...yet most of the kinnies later got trashed in the name of additional storage space.
Hated the dark muddy video and audio quality. The early episodes of the Johnny Carson Tonight Show and the short-lived but high energy color episodes of "Hullabaloo" ended up on a kinnie and that's sad....now just a memory.
 
I can remember seeing in certain episodes of Cheers or Seinfeld that were on film, but when certain scenes were supposed to be on a TV broadcast, especially news or sports, that it would be on tape. Actually weren't some sitcoms, especially ones with a live audience, taped and then transferred to film?
Like when on the Seinfeld show he went on Leno. It was the 1st time I ever saw the Tonight Show like that...unless it seems to me some other show did the same thing with Carson once.
 
Dr. Who was that way...

I also remember this surge of shows from ITC Entertainment (BBC-Boring British Cinema)...they were all supposed drama/ "horror" ::) flicks, the only one I remember the title of was "The Eyes Have It" where a murderer is going around killing blind people in a blind people's home. Very British, soap opera like & put you to sleep. Whenever they'd show him creeping around outside the place it was clear & normal looking.

There may have been an episode of Family Ties shot outside like that-maybe one of those family vacation episodes.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom